Adam thought so. He instantly and without argument or hesitation ate of that knowledge when Eve offered love to Adam.

Without Satan causing Original Sin, mankind could no know of love or hate as love and hate are subject to being good or evil.

Would you do as Adam did?

Was Satan right in opening our eyes to love and hate?

Should we venerate Satan more than Yahweh who tried to deny mankind love?

RegardsDL

Good question, bro. It's so hard to think to the ground of being below dualism like love and hate. To use the lingo of psychobabble love and hate are enmeshed like co-dependent lovers. Tradition has it that Eve seduced him. The traditional interpretation is androcentric. But, why do you think the serpent was Satan? The Genesis text doesn't say so.

Adam thought so. He instantly and without argument or hesitation ate of that knowledge when Eve offered love to Adam.

Without Satan causing Original Sin, mankind could no know of love or hate as love and hate are subject to being good or evil.

Would you do as Adam did?

Was Satan right in opening our eyes to love and hate?

Should we venerate Satan more than Yahweh who tried to deny mankind love?

RegardsDL

Good question, bro. It's so hard to think to the ground of being below dualism like love and hate. To use the lingo of psychobabble love and hate are enmeshed like co-dependent lovers. Tradition has it that Eve seduced him. The traditional interpretation is androcentric. But, why do you think the serpent was Satan? The Genesis text doesn't say so.

Right on both counts.

Christian dogma posits that the dragon of revelation is Satan and as the great deceiver, she was in Eden doing the first deception.

You are correct in that there is nothing in scriptures that sat the talking serpent was Satan. Dodma never matched the bible.

Ierrellus wrote:The Serpent is the evolving of the reptilian brain. See Paul MacLean on the tripartite human brain.

I think we evolved from a rodent, not a reptile.

RegardsDL

Science claims otherwise. The brain base is reptilian. We do not create stories as seen through the eyes of a rodent. If that were the case and our first brain growth was rodent, the serpent in the garden would be a rat. We see what we are comprised of.

"We must love one another or die." W.H.AudenI admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.

Ierrellus wrote:The Serpent is the evolving of the reptilian brain. See Paul MacLean on the tripartite human brain.

I think we evolved from a rodent, not a reptile.

RegardsDL

Science claims otherwise. The brain base is reptilian. We do not create stories as seen through the eyes of a rodent. If that were the case and our first brain growth was rodent, the serpent in the garden would be a rat. We see what we are comprised of.

Rodents are mammals. Hence there is no contradiction in saying we evolved from rodents and reptiles (the former itself coming from the latter)

Ierrellus wrote:The Serpent is the evolving of the reptilian brain. See Paul MacLean on the tripartite human brain.

I think we evolved from a rodent, not a reptile.

RegardsDL

Science claims otherwise. The brain base is reptilian. We do not create stories as seen through the eyes of a rodent. If that were the case and our first brain growth was rodent, the serpent in the garden would be a rat. We see what we are comprised of.

That is not what the story says. It says they could not because they lacked the knowledge of anything that had good or evil applications. That would include procreation and sexual matters.

That can't be correct because it would prevent them from doing literally anything. They couldn't pick up a stick because it might be used to hit someone or poke out an eye. They couldn't use their hands because hands can be used to strangle someone. Feet ... kicking someone. Etc.

If Adam can use his hands without doing harm then he can use his penis without doing harm.

That is not what the story says. It says they could not because they lacked the knowledge of anything that had good or evil applications. That would include procreation and sexual matters.

That can't be correct because it would prevent them from doing literally anything. They couldn't pick up a stick because it might be used to hit someone or poke out an eye. They couldn't use their hands because hands can be used to strangle someone. Feet ... kicking someone. Etc.

If Adam can use his hands without doing harm then he can use his penis without doing harm.

Well said, and further they even seemed to find mere nakedness sinful, which is not evil.

God had made them naked. He had no problem with it. They had no problem with it until they ate the fruit.

It's like the fruit messed up their thinking.

Which would mean either apple did not contain just knowledge, but also some strange irrational stuff, OR being naked is equivalent in kind, though not degree, to acts like rape. Which would be weird.

The story almost seems to imply that it is not knowledge, but the judgment of things being good and evil is the problem. Like they swallowed a concept that is harmful and not the truth. But then much of the Bible seems to clearly indicate that there is good and evil, and thus it is not a false set of categories.

The phrase in Hebrew: טוֹב וָרָע, tov wa-raʿ, literally translates as good and evil. This may be an example of the type of figure of speech known as merism, a literary device that pairs opposite terms together in order to create a general meaning, so that the phrase "good and evil" would simply imply "everything". This is seen in the Egyptian expression evil-good, which is normally employed to mean "everything". In Greek literature, Homer also uses the device when he lets Telemachus say, "I know all things, the good and the evil" (Od.20:309-10).[1]

If tree of the knowledge of good and evil is to be understood to mean a tree whose fruit imparts knowledge of everything, this phrase does not necessarily denote a moral concept. This view is held by several scholars.[1][2][3]

However, given the context of disobedience to God, other interpretations of the implications of this phrase also demand consideration. Robert Alter emphasizes the point that when God forbids the man to eat from that particular tree, he says that if he does so, he is "doomed to die". The Hebrew behind this is in a form regularly used in the Hebrew Bible for issuing death sentences.[4]